Conciseness

The body is dense, imperative, and explains nothing Claude already knows — every line is operational instruction — matching 'efficient; minor instances of over-explanation that could be trimmed'. Not 5 because §6's validator-quirk paragraph is repetitive (three consecutive 'never...' formulations) and the Compose condition is stated twice (§1 and §6); not 3 because there is no padded or concept-explaining content.

Actionability

Fully executable guidance throughout: exact shell snippets (RUN_ID="${QA_RUN_ID:-$(date +%s)-$$}", regex ^[A-Za-z0-9_-]+$), exact paths (qa-results/$RUN_ID/evidence/case-<number>.snapshot.txt), exact invocation format (env -u CI FACTORY_DISABLE_KEYRING=true ./qa-results/$RUN_ID/publish/Zipper …), and exact report formats (result-column emoji codes, link syntax [$label]($RUN_ID/evidence/...)). Matches 'copy-paste ready' with specific formats covering the common cases.

Workflow Clarity

Eight clearly numbered stages with explicit validation checkpoints and stop conditions (symlink refusal, RUN_ID regex check, existing-run-directory BLOCKED, pre-flight prerequisite checks) and error-recovery loops ('Never silently skip a flow... Continue with other relevant flows', 'Upload failures fall back to text and artifacts'). The one destructive operation (cleanup) is explicitly validated ('after verifying qa-results, the run directory, and both targets are not symlinks'), so the destructive-operation cap does not apply; this matches the 5 anchor with feedback loops and checkpoints.

Progressive Disclosure

Detail is appropriately delegated one level deep to clearly signaled files at point of use — config (.factory/skills/qa/config.yaml), the test menu (.factory/skills/qa-cli/SKILL.md), and the report template (.factory/skills/qa/REPORT-TEMPLATE.md) — keeping SKILL.md an orchestration overview, matching 'good structure; most content is appropriately placed'. Not 5 because the references are plain code-formatted paths rather than clearly navigable links and they point outside the skill bundle (no references/ directory exists, so they cannot be verified as bundle files).

Specificity

Names three concrete actions — "Maps the git diff to CLI flows", "tests the built application through Droid Control", "writes a concise QA report" — which matches the 'several specific actions; minor gaps in coverage' anchor. It falls short of 5 because coverage is not comprehensive (e.g., the Archives/Load Files/Production Sets artifacts the body tests are not mentioned) and exceeds 3 because more than 1-2 concrete actions are listed.

Completeness

Explicitly answers both: what ("Run functional QA for Zipper. Maps the git diff to CLI flows, tests the built application through Droid Control, and writes a concise QA report") and when ("Use when testing PRs, releases, or local changes") with concrete trigger phrases. This mirrors the 5-anchor example's structure; a 4 would require the 'when' to be less explicit or specific than it is.

Trigger Term Quality

Includes natural phrases users would say — "testing PRs", "local changes", "QA" — matching 'good keyword coverage; a few natural terms missing'. Not 5 because common variations like "verify", "regression test", or "smoke test" are absent; not 3 because the terms present go beyond a single generic keyword.

Distinctiveness Conflict Risk

Clear niche with distinct triggers — a named product (Zipper), functional QA, and a specific harness (Droid Control) — giving minimal overlap risk with other skills. It is well above the 4 anchor ('mostly distinct; minor overlap risk') because the product-scoped triggers are unlikely to fire for any other skill.